The Effect of Memorizing Particle Phrases through Student

Received: 09/28/2020

Accepted: 12/12/2020

Document Type: Original Article doi: 10.22034/iepa.2020.243736.1200

Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 2020, 3 (11), 27-40

The Effect of Memorizing Particle Phrases through Student-Generated

Sketches on EFL Learners’ Spoken Fluency

Reza Saee Dehghan Ph.D. Candidate at Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

Mohammad Khatib, Ph.D. Department of Persian Language and Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Farid Ghaemi, Ph.D. Department of English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University Karaj Branch, Alborz, Iran

Abstract

Using chunks is said to bring about fluency into speech as they save speakers from constructing their speech upon a

word-by-word basis. Particle phrases (A term coined in this study to refer to phrasal verbs and their derived and

deviated nouns and adjectives) are also among those chunks. This study seeks to see whether memorizing them will

affect EFL learners' spoken fluency. To this end, 51 Persian speaking participants (37 females, 14 males) who were

selected from 3 intact classes based on their performance in narrative video-based retelling constituted the sample of

the study. The study was a quasi-experimental one in design because of the non-random assignment of the participants

into either of the experimental and control groups. They were assigned to three groups: two experimental and one

control. Both experimental groups received the same instructions on metaphorical concepts of particles (out, off, etc.)

in the 150 phrasal verbs available in Garnier and Schmitt’s (2015) frequency list. They both engaged in self-generated

contexts except that those in the first came up with hands-on task of drawing sketches, too. The control group,

however, received none of the above treatments. The results of a one-way ANOVA procedure in the immediate post-

test indicated that the participants in the first experimental group significantly outperformed not only the control

group, but also the second experimental group that made more relative gains than their counterparts in the control

group. The outperformance of the first experimental group was also found in the delayed post-test, which represented

the long-term effects of the methods. The findings suggest several implications for this vital but surprisingly

neglected issue of engaging students with self-generated sketches.

Keywords: Memory, phrasal verbs, spoken fluency, student-generated sketches

Introduction

Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase

in the number of studies which have focused on the

effects of different vocabulary teaching techniques on

second language acquisition. Particle phrases (phrasal

verbs and their derived noun and adjective compounds)

are amongst lexical entities that are part and parcel of

native speakers’ “home language” (Chitty, 2014, p. 4).

A great number of them are acquired by English-

speaking children before they ever go to school. Their

days unfold in a series of particle phrases: wake up, get

off work, have some workout, drop by a friend’s house,

Corresponding Author

Email: [email protected]

have a makeup class, chill out. Despite the fact that

almost all particle phrases have a single-word synonym

from French that native speakers could use, very often

they do not want to (Chitty, 2014). These reasons have

prompted several researchers to tap into how these

lexical phrases should be taught (Abdollahpour &

Gholami, 2018; Boers, 2018; Boers & Webb, 2018;

Hinkel, 2018; Mart, 2012; Nassaji & Tian, 2010; White,

2012), and several corpus-based studies (Gardner &

Davies, 2007; Garnier & Schmitt, 2015, and Liu, 2011)

have revolved around what to include within the

syllabus.

http://journal.iepa.ir/article_91052.html

28 | P a g e Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory 2020, 3(11)

Among methodology-based studies, some have

tapped into conceptual metaphor (e.g., White, 2012)

since they believe that it enables the EFL learner to see

phrasal verbs as organized metaphorical expressions

understood based on “our knowledge about abstract

concepts” (Li, 2010, p. 206). According to Thom (2017)

conceptual metaphor helps demystify figurative and

polysemous phrasal verbs through lighting up the

"concrete-to-abstract path" on which literal meanings

"so clearly go from the concrete to the abstract"

(Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003, p. 1).

This study is significant owing to several reasons:

First and foremost, it has picked up where previous

attempts have left off. If this study had considered

presenting particle phrases merely in the context or

through pedagogical lists, it would have been a mere

replica of those carried out before. Rather, attempt has

been made to help EFL learners grasp the identification

and interpretation of particle phrases through teaching

strategies beyond memorization, syntactic rules, and

categorization (Bronshteyn, 2015; Jeong & Jiang, 2019).

Second, unlike previous studies, the effectiveness of the

methodology applied is not merely examined via written

multiple-choice tests given before and after the

treatments, rather it has been reportedly based on the

scores gained from the spoken performance of the

participants. After all, phrasal verbs are characteristics

of spoken language.

Third, compared to the huge number of phrasal verbs

and their compounds that keep being generated, derived,

and deviated, the limited number of particles (i.e., 17)

conceptually explained through metaphor sounds more

promising. Last, but not least, however new and

unprecedented the hands-on task of drawing sketches

may be for the EFL learner, it is definitely a step forward

in fashioning a counter-avoidance strategy in teaching

and learning particle phrases. In addition, learning

particle phrases have proved to be effective in lower

levels as well, as Northbrook and Conklin (2019) argue

that "even very low-level, beginner secondary students

are sensitive to the frequency of lexical bundles which

appear in the input they receive from teaching materials"

(p. 1).

So far, the traditionalist view to phrasal verbs has

made learning them daunting for EFL learners due to

certain misunderstandings stemming from the view that

they are “illogical, random, unpredictable, unique to

English, necessarily informal or colloquial, having

'proper', non-phrasal equivalents, and a ramified area of

English lexis, separate from the rest” (Marks 2005, p.1).

Bolinger (1971), Lipka (1972), Sroka (1972), and Fraser

(1976) are amongst those who laid the foundations of

showcasing phrasal verbs as arbitrary combinations of a

verb and one or more particles. In this view, linguistic

meaning is divorced from the human conceptual system.

Given their understanding of meaning in language, these

linguists developed a narrow view for analyzing phrasal

verbs. Instead of focusing on “meaning making and how

different meanings are formed within particle phrases,

they primarily focused their analysis on the syntactic

properties of the constructions” (Kovács, 2011, p. 143).

Thom (2017) states that the disconnection between

research and pedagogy has yielded two approaches to

meaning in phrasal verbs: ignoring differences in

meaning or regarding meanings as arbitrary. In this vein,

the EFL learner has been unable to see through the

metaphorical composition of phrasal verbs to analyse

their components (Siyanova-Chanturia, 2015). Due to

the above-mentioned views, the EFL learner has failed

to look beyond these “syntactic oddities” (Darwin &

Gray, 1999, p. 65), with occasional “potential for

semantic non-compositionality” (Thim, 2012, p. 241).

After all, as Becker (2014) also reiterates, the EFL

learner may have been ignorant rather than avoidant of

phrasal verbs all along. It, therefore, calls for further

analytic research “to distinguish between avoidance and

ignorance” of phrasal verbs (Damen & Al Hameed,

2013, p. 11).

Apart from the above issues, researchers and

materials developers have long been seeking to decide

what to include when it comes to teaching of phrasal

verbs so that the materials are not based upon intuitions.

One seminal endeavour in this realm is Garnier and

Schmitt’s (2015) phrasal verb frequency list. Despite its

unprecedented merit of determining the frequency of

meaning senses, no teaching method has been offered

since it is outside the scope of their work. Thus, even if

a learner were to obtain such a list, chances are they

would simply attempt to learn those phrasal verbs be

memorizing them as whole units.

Finally, studies carried out so far have merely

sufficed with reporting their results based on written

multiple-choice tests administered once before and once

after the treatments. More importantly, the long-term

effects of those methods have also been ignored.

Accordingly, the success or failure of their

methodologies could not have been genuinely

established. Sadly, but truly, while phrasal verbs are

considered as a particularity of spoken language, they

have never been examined in the spoken product of the

participants.

In light of these issues highlighted above, the study

was thus guided by the following research questions:

1. Does teaching the conceptual meanings of particle

phrases along with student-generated sketches have

any statistically significant effect on Iranian EFL

learners' spoken fluency?

Saeedehghan et al. | The Effect of Memorizing … P a g e | 29

2. Does teaching the conceptual meanings of particle

phrases without student-generated sketches have any

statistically significant effect on Iranian EFL

learners' spoken fluency?

3. In terms of spoken fluency, does the inclusion of

student-generated sketches make any statistically

significant difference compared to teaching them

without student-generated sketches?

4. In terms of spoken fluency, are the results gained

from comparing the long-term effects of teaching

particle phrases through student-generated sketches

statistically significant from teaching them without

student-generated sketches?

Review of Literature

In essence, particle-based learning of particle phrases

builds on the theoretical assumptions of cognitive

semantics in general and the notions of conceptual

metaphors in particular (White, 2012) so as to enable

FFL learners to establish a meaningful link between

literal and figurative senses of particles via metaphorical

mappings to understand the figurative meaning of

particle phrases as a whole (Thom, 2017). It aims at

providing a systematic and interesting learning method

by making the participants aware of the underlying

metaphorical pattern(s) governing particle phrases and

their figurative meanings. It also helps EFL learners

understand the spatial, prototypical senses of particles

abstracted to make EFL learners see the systematic

concepts for the figurative meaning of most particle

phrases. These meaningful links not only contribute to a

more systematic learning of particle phrases, but also

bring about a better recall and longer retention of the

learnt particle phrases and a more precise anticipation

through correct guessing of meaning which may lead to

a more creative way of learning of the novel particle

phrases the EFL learners come across for the first time

(Chitty, 2014).

Particle phrases are products of our conceptual

systems, then like any other language feature, they are at

least partially language dependent (Thom, 2017).

Cognitive linguists treat particle phrases as polysemous

rather than homonymous. This may well explain why

there is a growing body of research pointing to the

benefits of including explicit metaphor instruction as

means for teaching particle phrases (Chitty, 2014;

Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003; White, 2012; Thom, 2017). The

recognition of the link between the literalness and

idiomaticity of particles via conceptual meaning has

been a major contribution of cognitive linguistics to a

better understanding of the meanings of particle phrases.

Kovacs (2011) argues that the meanings are distinct but

related to each other “in a systematic and natural way

where one or more senses are more prototypical (central)

while others are less prototypical (peripheral)” (p. 14).

Simply put, within a particle phrase, there is a base

meaning from which other abstract meanings are derived

and extended (Rudzka-Ostyn, 2003). For instance, our

understanding of “up” can be reflected literally in “sit

up,” where “up” refers to a literal direction the body

moves with the action of sitting. Yet this particle can also

be conceptually extended, as in the particle phrases

“clean up,” where “up” takes on a new meaning of

“completion”. The literal meaning of “up” in direction

and the abstract meaning of “completion”, are not

separate and unrelated; rather the abstract meaning has

been conceptually mapped onto the base meaning. Thus,

our language is highly conceptual, which uses

thousands of expressions based on concrete, physical

entities in order to express high-level abstractions.

That particles contribute special meanings to the

particle phrase is shown by the fact that new

combinations are rarely made on a random basis, but

they form patterns which can be anticipated. Lindner

(1981, cited in Kovacs, 2011) gives a detailed lexico-

semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions

with up and out. Rudzka-Ostyn (2003) presents a

cognitive analysis of out, in, into, up, down, off, away,

on, over, back, about, around, across, through, by and

along. Chitty (2014) follows the example of Rudzka-

Ostyn’s (2003) except that he adds other particles such

as at, for, after, apart, and to so as to cover a more

comprehensive set. The conceptual meanings of

particles are elaborated in the above-mentioned studies.

For example, the particle “up” has the meaning of

completing and finishing in drink up, eat up, heal up or

break up; “off” has the meaning of obstructing and

separating in block off, brick off, cut off or wall off or

“down” has the meaning of completing or failing in

break down, close down, hunt down or turn down, etc.

By definition, particle phrases are prefabricated

chunks “to be stored and retrieved whole from memory

at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation

or analysis by the language grammar (Wray & Perkins,

2000, p. 1). According to Wray (2002), in the holistic

outlook of language, the whole chunks of language of

various lengths are processed as a unit. In this model,

particle phrases are viewed a dynamic response to

processing and interactional needs of language users.

Wray (2002) and Schmitt, Dornyei, Adolphs, and

Durrow (2004) place a strong emphasis on prefabricated

sequences in language production. They go so far as to

say: "Formulaic language has become one of the major

issues in applied linguistics in the new millennium"

(2004, p. 55). In the literature, denominations include

chunks, prefabs, fixed expressions, formulae, gambits,


prefabricated routines and patterns to name but a few

(see Wray 2002).

A considerable amount of research has been carried

out to understand what constitutes fluent speech

(Derwing, et al., 2009; Freed, 2000; Lennon, 1990;

Segalowitz, 2010) and how it can be achieved (Freed,

2000; Lennon, 1990; Koponen & Riggenbach, 2000).

From a research perspective, fluency is an important

research focus as it not only characterizes one of three

key features of oral performance, CAF (Ellis, 2009;

Housen, et al., 2012; Skehan, 2009), but also because it

is a reliable predictor of L2 proficiency (de Jong, et al.,

2012; Révész, et al., 2016) and shines light on

underlying processes of speech production and language

acquisition (e.g. proceduralization) (de Jong et al., 2012;

Kormos, 2006; Segalowitz, 2010).

However, it has been suggested that fluency is a

complex construct to define (Freed, 2000), and a

difficult aspect of oral performance to assess (Brown,

2006; Fulcher, 2003) and, while L2 research has

underlined the importance of fluency, it has remained a

less attended-to area in L2 teaching (Freed, 2000;

Lennon, 1990; Rossiter, et al., 2010). This may, at least

partly, be related to the commonly-held assumption that

fluency develops naturally as general proficiency

progresses, and that therefore it cannot be ‘taught’

(Chambers, 1997; Lennon, 1990). Alternatively, it is

possible that fluency is not being tackled in the

classroom due to the fact that its complex, multifaceted

nature makes it difficult for teachers to engage with at

both conceptual and practical levels.

Researchers have suggested different tools to

measure learners’ language development. At first, they

borrowed length-based measures from the field of first

language (L1) acquisition, the most common ones being

the mean length of particular structures (Norris &

Ortega, 2009) which have been widely adopted in the

second and third language acquisition research

enterprise. However, these measures proved to be

fraught with problems. For instance, beginner learners

rely much on rote-learned formulaic sequences to

complement their nascent grammar (Myles, 2012), and,

therefore, perceived longer production of such structures

which gives false impressions of increased proficiency.

To solve the problem, Larsen-Freeman (1978) proposed

an Index of Development, which was further

operationalized as measures of Complexity, Accuracy,

and Fluency (CAF).

Even though the concept of fluency is constantly

applied within the field of applied linguistics, there is no

global agreement about what is perceived as fluency

(Chambers, 1997). Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) define

fluency as “production of language in real time without

undue pausing or hesitations” (p. 139). Spoken fluency

is frequently assessed through proficiency tests (e.g.,

IELTS, TOEFL iBT, etc.). However, investigators have

tried to unravel the distinctive elements that develop

fluency rating.

Method

Design

This study applied a quasi-experimental, pretest-

posttest-follow-up design. The participants were chosen

from intact classes, and were rated based on their

performance in terms of spoken fluency in narrative

video-based retelling. The data were collected from the

results of the participants' performances on proficiency

test, pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test.

Participants

The original sample included three classes of

undergraduates (a total of 134 students) majoring in

English language translation in Islamic Azad university,

Karaj Branch, Alborz Province, Iran. There were both

male and female EFL students, but as it is typical of

Iranian EFL learners. Females (44 participants) by far

outnumbered males (7 participants). This meant that the

ratio of male to female learners could not be kept

constant in each group and gender had to be excluded

from the analysis. As for the age of those involved in this

study, approximately, all of the participants were in their

early 20s with a few exceptional cases aging above

thirty. It is worth mentioning that a major criterion for

the selection of the participants in this study was that

they were all native speakers of Persian who had never

lived or stayed in an English environment and virtually

had no opportunity to use English for communicative

purposes outside the classroom context. Nor had they

ever been to any English-speaking country. They had

already passed Spoken English Courses I and II, and

were to attend a two-hour course of “Oral Reproduction

of the Story I”.

All participants from the intact classes took a

proficiency test used to check the homogeneity of the

three (two experimental and one control) groups in terms

of their entry proficiency level. For the sake of variance

homogeneity, the 134 students were screened based on

information from the scores gained from the 2010

version of the Preliminary English Test (PET) that is a

standardized second level Cambridge ESOL exam for an

intermediate level. The total score was 100, and those

whose scores ranged between one standard deviation

above and below the mean were selected to participate

in the study. Other extreme scores were excluded. Out

of the original 134 students, 51 participants who

attended all treatment sessions were included in the final


analyses. The homogenized participants were assigned

to Experimental Group 1 (EG1, N=18), Experimental

Group 2 (EG2, N=18), and one Control Group (CG,

N=15):

Raters

Two Ph.D. holders who had been teaching speaking

courses for more than 8 years rated the speaking ability

of the participants for spoken fluency indices. In order to

find whether there was any consistency in the scorers of

the ratings, a pilot study was carried out, in which 10

participants were given the pre-test material. The result

of the inter-rater reliability among the three raters appear

in the results section.

Instruments

This study made use of four measurement instruments to

collect quantitative information on the participants’

language proficiency level, and their oral performance.

These instruments included a standard 2010 version of

Preliminary English Test (PET), which was conducted

to have the participants of the study selected. The

validity of the test was approved by two scholars in the

field and the reliability was checked through the KR-21

reliability index, the results of which showed a high level

of reliability (KR-21=0.84). Once, the participants for

the present study were determined, their spoken

narratives of an animation were rated in pre-test, post-

test, and delayed post-test. The video called “850

meters” was of an identifiable degree of sequential

structure and a predictable basic sequence (Skehan &

Foster, 1999) and was chosen and confirmed by EFL

experts. The first test (video-based, narrative retelling)

was conducted at the very beginning of the semester

before the treatment started. The post-test including the

narrative retelling of the same animation was held at the

end of the treatment, which was followed by delayed

post-test of the same video the participants were to orally

narrate for the third time two weeks after the post-test.

The inter-rater reliability for the pretests, immediate

posttests and delayed posttests was done through

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the results

showed that based on the criterion proposed by Koo and

Li (2016), there was a high level of reliability in all three

tests. In fact, there were significant agreements between

the three raters who rated the participants’ performance

on the pretest (α = .823, p = .000), posttest (α = .892, p

= .000), and delayed posttest (α = .908, p = .000). The

construct validity of the tests was measured through a

factor analysis through the varimax rotation method and

the test loaded under two factors which accounted for

65.39 percent of the total variance.

Treatment

The present study dealt with the conceptual analysis of

the most frequent particles in the corpus-based studies

carried out by Gardner and Davies (2007), Liu (2011),

and Garnier and Schmitt (2015). The lists being analysed

in terms of particle frequency, 13 particles were

extracted to be conceptually instructed along with their

corresponding particle phrases in Garnier and Schmitt’s

PHaVE. Since majority of the particle phrases in the list

are polysemous, it was decided to make the participants

aware of those links between the meaning senses of

those polysemous particle phrases in the lists, too.

The first experimental group (EG1) consisting of 18

participants went through a five-step procedure. In the

first step, the participants’ attention was drawn to

metaphorical expansions inherent in particle phrases

(Thom, 2017; White, 2012). In so doing, they were

presented with a simple diagram (Liu & Zhang, 2018)

with the core conceptual meaning of the particle in the

centre and particle phrases that conceptually revolve

around that particle in focus surrounding it.

OFF as AWAYDecline, lessondepart

take OFF drop OFF

Steal so

me

thin

g from

a p

lacem

ake O

FF w

ith

drive

away

drive

OFF

leave

sth to

be

picked u

pwalk aw

ay

Unexpect

edly

succ

edd

emit (an odor or

smoke)

walk OFF dro

p OFF

pull OFF

give OFF

Figure 1.

Particle “OFF” diagram

In the second step, the instructor handed out an

exploration worksheet, which included target particle

phrases having been extracted from newspapers, series

or movie scripts, short stories series called “Diary of a

Wimpy kid” by Kinney (2012, 2013, 2015) as well as

web pages and articles. Small groups of students were

asked to negotiate the potential meaning of each particle

phrase. As they attempted to make sense of targeted

particle phrases, they were to rely on contextual cues

found in the extracts. The students were helped through

some ‘idiomatic’ and figurative particle phrases by

analysing their component parts and then looking for a


logical relationship within a specific context (Celce-

Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

In the third step, each participant was asked to

express those meanings through drawing sketches that

implied their understandings from the conceptual

motivation of particle phrases covered. To have a

window onto learners’ thinking process, they engaged in

a think-aloud process (Cooper, 1999; White, 2012)

communicating the meanings their drawings imply in a

dialogic manner. In the fourth step, the students were

prompted to consider the polysemous particle phrases

with their meaning sense(s). The participants were then

required to use those meaning senses in one personal

context and draw the sketch of their contexts and try to

make a link between if at all. The following is a student-

generated sketch including different meaning senses of

the polysemous particle “to pick up”:

Figure 2.

Polysemous “pick up” sketched by a participant in EG1

In step five, the students shared their drawings by

explaining what they drew. They used dialogues to

further engage in the process of mediation (Wells, 2002)

producing multiple interpretations of conceptual

metaphor within particle phrases. Once the steps were

over, the students were up for a “Pink Panther” episode

the narration of which concluded each session. The

students took down notes for which they were given time

to edit by rephrasing what they were going to say with

particle phrases (Nassaji & Tian, 2010) at hand. Each

session started off by having those particle phrases orally

reviewed by the participants before “The Particle of the

Day” was introduced. This also helped the participants

to accumulatively recycle their repertoire and generalize

those meaning senses.

Experimental Group 2 (EG2) consisting of 18

participants went through the same procedure in EG1

except that they did not engage in any sketching

whatsoever. Instead, the participants in EG2 read a

passage containing the conceptual meanings of those

particles and particle phrases excerpted from Chitty

(2014).

Those in the Control Group (CG) were treated

through mainstream traditional approaches (reviewed by

Mart, 2012). They were given lists that contained other

vocabularies and particle phrases inter alia that the

teacher wrote on the screen along with their Persian

equivalents (Ganji, 2011). To make sure that equal

amount of time for the three groups, the teacher-

researcher had a colleague monitor the timing of the

procedures each session. The treatment lasted 13

sessions each specified to “The Particle of the Day”.

After the treatment sessions, the post-test was

administered to the participants. They were instructed

not to write full sentences while watching the video. All

participants were given five minutes (Foster & Skehan,

1996; Mehnert, 1998) to do what is known as “solitary

planning” which is a type of pre-task planning activity

(Cooper, 2017). This allowed them to rephrase and edit

their narratives in terms of grammar and lexis for them

to focus on either form or content as they saw fit. To

make sure they were not reading from their notes, they

were collected before they began their narratives.

Two weeks after the post-test, the delayed post-test

was held and they were to watch the animation “850

Meters” and orally narrate the video in the same manner

as the pre-test and the post-test. The pre-task planning

was the same as previous tests and they were given five

minutes once the video was fully watched to organize

what they had written in their notes. The three oral tests

were all administered in a quiet classroom where their

spoken products were recorded for transcription which

was later coded and scored in terms of lexical

complexity, grammatical accuracy, as well as fluency.

Findings

Regarding the first three research questions concerning

whether a) engaging participants in particle phrases with

drawing sketches will make them have statistically

significant performance in their spoken fluency, b)

engaging participants in particle phrases without

drawing sketches will make them have statistically

significant performance in their spoken fluency, and c)

there is a statistically significant difference between

inclusion and non-inclusion of student-generated

sketches on the learners’ spoken fluency, one-way

ANOVA was conducted. First, a one-way ANOVA was

conducted on the results of the pre-tests across the

groups, and the results showed that there was no

significant difference between the three groups before

the treatment. After the treatment, another one-way


ANOVA was conducted on the results of the post-test to

see if there was a significant difference between the three

groups after the treatment. The descriptive statistics of

the pre-test, post-test and the delayed post-test are

presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Pre-Test, Post-Test and Delayed Post-Test

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Min Max

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Pre-test

EG1 18 3.77 .401 .094 3.57 3.97 3 4

EG2 18 3.93 .524 .123 3.67 4.19 3 5

CG 15 3.63 .180 .047 3.53 3.73 3 4

Total 51 3.78 .413 .058 3.67 3.90 3 5

Post-test

EG1 18 5.94 .447 .105 5.71 6.16 5 7

EG2 18 5.24 .420 .099 5.03 5.45 5 6

CG 15 4.01 .271 .070 3.86 4.16 4 5

Total 51 5.12 .873 .122 4.88 5.37 4 7

Delayed post-test

EG1 18 5.816 .5798 .1367 5.527 6.104 4.7 6.7

EG2 18 5.398 .4045 .0953 5.197 5.599 5.0 6.3

CG 15 4.377 .3966 .1024 4.157 4.596 3.8 5.0

Total 51 5.245 .7522 .1053 5.034 5.457 3.8 6.7

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics on the pre-

test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. As the

table indicates, in the pre-test stage, EG1 (M=3.77,

SD=.401), EG2 (M = 3.93, SD = .524) and CG (M =

3.63, SD = .180) had almost the same means on the pre-

test of spoken fluency. Furthermore in the post-test, EG1

(M=5.94, SD=.447) treated through conceptual

metaphor with drawings, had the highest mean on the

post-test of spoken fluency. This was followed by EG2

(M=5.24, SD=.420) who were treated merely through

conceptual metaphor and CG (M=4.01, SD=.271) that

received the traditional treatment of translation. The

table also indicates that in the delayed post-test EG1

(M=5.816, SD=.579) had the highest mean. This was

followed by EG2 (M=5.398, SD=.404) and CG

(M=4.377, SD=.396) groups. The assumption of

homogeneity of variances was tested through Levene’s

test, results of which is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Immediate Post-Test

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Posttest of

Spoken

Fluency

Based on Mean 1.825 2 48 .172

Based on Median 1.485 2 48 .237

Based on Median and with adjusted df 1.485 2 42.335 .238

Based on trimmed mean 1.762 2 48 .183

Results show that the significance value reported in

Sig. column is .172 (Levene’s F (2, 48) =1.82, P=.172),

which indicates that the assumption of homogeneity of

variances was met. This assumption being made, the

one-way ANOVA test was conducted, the results of the

one-way ANOVA are presented in Table 3 below.


Table 3.

One-way ANOVA of Immediate Post-test

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 30.697 2 15.349 99.239 .000

Within Groups 7.424 48 .155

Total 38.121 50

Considering the results of one-way ANOVA (F (2,

48) =99.23, P=.000, ω2=.794 representing a large effect

size) (Table 3), it can be concluded that there were

significant differences between the means of the three

groups on the post-test of spoken fluency. To get more

exact results, the post-hoc comparisons of the post-test

of spoken fluency is presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Post-hoc Comparisons of Immediate Post-Test

(I) Group (J) Group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval


EG1 EG2 .694* .131 .000 .36 1.03

CG 1.925* .137 .000 1.58 2.27

EG2 CG 1.231* .137 .000 .88 1.58

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Based on the results of the post-hoc test, it can be

concluded that EG2 (M=5.24) significantly

outperformed CG (M=4.01) on the posttest of spoken

fluency (MD=1.23, p=.000). Conclusions that can be

made from the results of the post-hoc comparisons

indicate that EG1 (M=5.95) significantly outperformed

CG (M=4.01) on the post-test of spoken fluency

(MD=1.92, p=.000). Furthermore, it was found that EG1

(M=5.95) significantly outperformed EG2 (M=5.24) on

the post-test of spoken fluency (MD=.694, p=.000).

Conclusions that can be made from the statistical

procedures are that a) teaching the conceptual meanings

of particle phrases along with student-generated

sketches has a statistically significant effect on Iranian

EFL learners' spoken fluency, b) teaching the conceptual

meanings of particle phrases along without student-

generated sketches has a statistically significant effect on

Iranian EFL learners' spoken fluency, and c) there was a

significant difference between using and not using

student-generated sketches on their spoken fluency.

The fourth research question, which aimed at

investigating whether in terms of spoken fluency, the

results gained from comparing the long-term effects of

teaching particle phrases through student-generated

sketches are significantly different from teaching them

without student-generated sketches. To investigate this

question, another one-way ANOVA was carried out,

before which, the assumptions of normality and

homogeneity of variances were investigated. Results are

presented in the tables below.

Table 5.

Testing Normality Assumption of Delayed Post-Test

Group N Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

EG1 18 -.649 .536 .009 1.038

EG2 18 1.038 .536 .419 1.038

CG 15 .411 .580 -.743 1.121

As displayed in Table 5, the absolute values of the

skewness and kurtosis were not higher than ±2

(Bachman 2005).


Table 6.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Delayed Post-Test

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Based on Mean 1.393 2 48 .258

Based on Median .897 2 48 .414

Based on Median and with adjusted df .897 2 38.979 .416

Based on trimmed mean 1.306 2 48 .280

The assumption of homogeneity of variances was

also retained on delayed posttest. The non-significant

results of Levene’s tests (F (2, 48) =.897, p > .05)

indicates that there were no significant differences

between the three groups’ variances. Regarding the

inter-rater reliability, Table 7 below shows the results.

Table 7.

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of Delayed Post-test

Intraclass Correlation 95% Confidence Interval F Test with True Value

Lower Bound Upper Bound Value df1 df2 Sig

Single Measures .767 .660 .850 10.870 50 100 .000

Average Measures .908 .854 .944 10.870 50 100 .000

There was significant agreement between the three

raters who rated the participants’ performance on the

delayed posttest. As displayed in Table 7, the results

(α=.908, p<.05, 95% CI [.854, .944]) indicated that the

three raters enjoyed significant inter-rater reliability.

These assumptions being made, the one-way ANOVA

test of the delayed post-test was also investigated, the

results of which are presented in Table 8 below.

Table 8.

One-way ANOVA of Delayed Post-Test

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 17.593 2 8.796 39.467 .000

Within Groups 10.698 48 .223

Total 28.291 50

The results of one-way ANOVA (F (2, 48) =39.46,

p<.05, partial eta squared=.622 representing a large

effect size) indicated that there were significant

differences between the three groups’ means on delayed

post-test. Thus, the null-hypothesis was rejected.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the results gained

from comparing the long-term effects of teaching

particle phrases through student-generated sketches are

significantly different from teaching them without

student-generated sketches. To be more specific, Table

9 displays the results of post-hoc Scheffe’s test.

Table 9.

Multiple Comparisons Tests of Delayed Post-Test

(I) Group (J) Group Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval


EG1 EG2 .4172* .1574 .038 .020 .815

CG 1.4389* .1650 .000 1.022 1.856

EG2 EG1 -.4172* .1574 .038 -.815 -.020

CG 1.0217* .1650 .000 .605 1.439

CG EG1 -1.4389* .1650 .000 -1.856 -1.022

EG2 -1.0217* .1650 .000 -1.439 -.605

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Based on these results, it can be concluded that;

a- The first group (M=5.816) significantly

outperformed the second group (M=5.398) on

delayed posttest of spoken fluency (MD=.417, p<.05,

95 % CI [.020, .815].

b- The first group (M=5.816) significantly

outperformed the second group (M=4.377) on

delayed posttest of spoken fluency (MD=1.438,

p<.05, 95 % CI [1.02, 1.85].

c- The second group (M=5.398) significantly

outperformed the CG (M=4.377) on delayed posttest

of spoken fluency (MD=1.021, p<.05, 95 % CI [.605,

1.439].

Discussion and Conclusion

The outcome of the post-test analysis depicted that the

inclusion of conceptually mediated sketches made the

participants in the first group outperform (M=5.82) those

in the second group who were presented merely with

conceptual metaphor (M=5.16) through the interactive

worksheet containing a text about the metaphorical

meanings of particle phrases. The second experimental

group, in turn, outperformed those in the control group

(M=4.09). This may well explain that the conceptual

approach to teaching particle phrases materialized

through student-generated sketches must have had a

significant effect in retaining and using these entities in

their spoken fluency (Thom, 2017). In other words,

equipping them with nonverbal, visual aids benefited

their achievement (Çandarlı, 2018 on the correlation

between the levels of metalinguistic knowledge and

frequencies of lexical phrases in L2 writers’ essays;

Marashi & Maherinia, 2011 on the effects of pictures on

learning particle phrases; Oe & Alam, 2013, on the

effectiveness of Manga cartoons and pictures on particle

phrases). The results of the study, however, contradict

those of White’s (2012) in which the conceptual

approach proved to produce “modest” results (p. 429).

Lexis-wise, the inclusion of particle phrases, as it was

expected, naturally led to “greater length and

complexity” (Wood, 2010, p. 47). Letting participants

see various literal as well as figurative meanings, as

Verspoor and Lowie (2003) also claim, allowed

participants of this study “to incorporate the figurative

sense into a semantic network more effectively to be

recalled more easily” (p. 569). Simply put, attention to

the semantic contribution of particles may have fostered

processing (Baddeley, 1990) which in turn led to more

fluency. Another similar study was that of Mohylevska

(2020) who found that lexical chunks can improve

speaking fluency of Ukrainian EFL learners. To support

these findings, Side (1990) suggests, “students’ own

efforts to create meaningful patterns are in themselves

aids to memory” (p. 151).

Engaging the participants with negotiating their

personal understanding via the sketches made the

participants “interpret and generate personal meanings

that make sense” (Lantolf & Johnson, 2007, p. 885). In

effect, asking students to draw conceptual sketches

employs Newman and Holzman’s (1993) tool-and-

result methodology, which has proved by Jaeger, et al.

(2018) to be effective to reduce memory for seductive

details in science text. The conceptual reflection serves

as both a tool for learning and a result of development

(Negueruela, 2008, cited in White, 2012). In the act of

drawing, students created their own semiotic materials,

which help to mediate conceptual understanding

(Serrano-Lopez & Poehner, 2008, cited in White, 2012).

In addition, Wiley (2019) has shown that “instructing

students to sketch a drawing during reading” can

positively enhance their learning process.

From a cognitive perspective, personal meaning can

be understood as conceptual motivation. This is in line

with Kovecses and Szabco’s (1996) claim that equipping

the learners with cognitive motivation for idioms would

help learners “retain them longer in memory” (p. 331).

Compared to their earliest days of the treatment, the

participants showed more fluency characterized as the

ability to speak freely, without unnecessary pausing

comparable with those characteristics of the speech of a

native speaker (Polyakov & Tormyshova, 2014). These

findings are also in line with Verspoor and Lowie (2003)

who reiterate that letting participants see various literal

as well as figurative meanings connected to core

meanings would allow them “to incorporate the

figurative sense into a semantic network more

effectively and recall it later more easily” (p. 569). This

is in line with the findings of Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel,

Stengers, and Demecheleer (2006) and Wood (2010)

that highlight the facilitatory effect of formulaic

sequences such as phrasal verbs in EFL speakers’

fluency” (Toni, et al., 2017, p. 91).

As for the results gained from the delayed post-test

the purpose of which being able to see the probable and

durable effects of the instruction on the retention of the

target particle phrases, the participants’ performances in

terms of fluency remained statistically unchanged after

a 2-week delay. It seems that the two-week gap may not

have been long enough to have the participants’

performance evaluated. Or, it may be the effectiveness

of the conceptual metaphor in both experimental groups

that made them keep fluency of their products as high.

Another possibility may be task familiarity, in that they

were exposed to the same video they had been shown in

the pre-test and the post-test (Rahimpour & Hazar, 2007;


Skehan, 2016; Skehan & Foster, 1997; Skehan, et al.,

2012).

Studies carried out by García Mayo (2002), Nassaji

and Tian (2010) and Teng (2017), also confirm the

efficiency of hands-on task of drawing that eventually

lead to an improved spoken fluency (Wood, 2002; Gu,

2014). According to Wood (2006), using a string of

words in narrative retelling not only can activate the

release of other word forms and phrases, but also can

facilitate speaking fluency. In this study, this was

witnessed in “shorter and less frequent pauses which

allowed longer runs of speech between pauses” since the

participants were able to retrieve word combinations

from their cognitive storage (p. 39). However, although

Cheng & Beal (2020) found that students in the drawing

group had significantly higher learning recall than

students in the imagining group, their participants

perceived drawing, imagining, and reading with pictures

for learning as useful, but students were more intended

to learn with provided pictures than to generate

drawings.

Although many researchers believe that particle

phrases are “the scourge of the learner” (Riguel, 2014)

and learning them is a “tax” on the EFL learner’s oral

production, the results of the present study proved such

studies otherwise since far as spoken fluency is

concerned, the results are promising. This suggests that

further attempts at teaching particle phrases with

emphasis on conceptually-based drawings are

worthwhile since it results in learner autonomy, self-

direction and self-evaluation (Cohen, 1998).

In this study, it was revealed that failing to perceive

and make use of particle phrases, the EFL learners would

have to look for alternative ways of saying it, which

would be less accurate, less correct, and less “English”.

This is a tax on fluency (Raddaoui, p. 21). Using particle

phrases in their narratives, EFL learners are saved from

coming up with otherwise one-word, near equivalents.

Assuming particle phrases “are in their active memory,

EFL learners are not going to remain at the mercy of

words” (p.22). As Cowie (1993) puts it, spoken fluency

is contingent on mastery of lexical entities such as

phrasal verbs. Using particle phrases is crucial to fluent

English and sounding native-like (Garnier & Schmitt,

2015). Because particle phrases are widely used in

spoken informal discourse, failure to use them in such

situations may make language sound unnatural and non-

idiomatic (Siyanova & Schmitt, 2007). Therefore, this

necessitates their inclusion in the curriculum (Garnier &

Schmitt, 2015). As Thom (2017) puts is, learning

particle phrases is a productive endeavour for any

language learner, as it will directly contribute to their

communicative competence in English.

Teaching accompanied by student-generated

drawings would benefit teacher and students at the same

time. It saves the precious time of the class, which is

mostly spent on dictionary-based meanings, ensued by

extracting examples that students cannot even relate to.

Inspired by the steps followed in this study include

conceptualizing the meanings, relating those meaning

senses, drawing and sharing personal sketches in

dialogues, and using what was learnt in one’s spoken

product. Teachers and materials developers, therefore,

can coproduce textbook materials within a more

comprehensive approach in which lessons are built on

each other, presenting the central meaning first and

extended meanings in further lessons, which would add

continuity and structure to the lessons. As for the

students, they will be able to learn and memorize particle

phrases based on particles and their conceptual meaning

sense(s).

Regarding the limitations of this study, one of them

was selecting the target participants to take part in the

survey. Since randomization was not possible, three

intact classes were selected based on convenience

sampling which would limit the generalizability of the

study. Furthermore, it was impossible to take into

account, for example, whether one is good at drawing

sketches or otherwise. It could not be realized until the

treatment sessions started. Another limitation was in

scoring spoken fluency since it was based on the number

of words and phrases the participants could accomplish

within a minute. The slow or fast speech rate of the

individuals has to do with individual differences which

was unintentionally ignored in this study. The limited

number of participants who took part in this study is yet

another limitation due to several executive as well as

administrative issues on the part of the university in

providing this study with larger rooms and more seats

with at least twice as many EFL participants. One such

limitation was also imposed on the number of particles

and particle phrases selected for the treatment sessions.

Had more particles been covered, the scope of the study

would have been broadened. Despite the fact that this

study enjoyed both male and female participants with

females by far outnumbering males, male participants

could not be omitted from the total number of the

participants of the study since the total number would

have otherwise fallen dramatically. Nor could the

participant be divided into male and female participants

for that matter.

References

Abdollahpour, Z., & Gholami, J. (2018). Building blocks of

medical abstracts: frequency, functions, and

structures of lexical bundles. Asian ESP

Journal, 14(1), 82-110.


Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice.

Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

Becker, T. P. (2014). Avoidance of English phrasal verbs:

Investigating the effect of proficiency, learning

context, task type, and verb type. Asian Journal of

English Language Teaching, 24, 1-33.

Boers, F. (2018). Learning lexical phrases. In A. Burns and

J.C. Richards (eds), The Cambridge guide to learning

English as a Second Language. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Boers, F., & Webb, S. (2018). Teaching and learning

collocation in adult second and foreign language

learning. Language Teaching, 51(1), 77-89.

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., &

Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and

perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach

to the test. Language teaching research, 10(3), 245-

261.

Bolinger, D. L. M. (1971). The Phrasal Verb in English.

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, A. (2006). An examination of the rating process in

the revised IELTS speaking test [online]. In:

International English Language Testing System

(IELTS) Research Reports 6. Canberra: IELTS

Australia and British Council, 1-30.

Çandarlı, D. (2018). Changes in L2 writers’ self-reported

metalinguistic knowledge of lexical phrases over one

academic year. The Language Learning Journal, 1-

17.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The

grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd

ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by fluency? System,

25, 535-544.

Cheng, L., & Beal, C. R. (2020). Effects of student-generated

drawing and imagination on science text reading in a

computer-based learning environment. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 225-

247.

Chitty, E. T. (2014). How we really talk using phrasal verbs

in English. London: Amazon Publications

Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a

Second Language. New York: Addison Wesley

Longman Limited.

Cooper, R. (2017). Task-based approaches and interaction in

the 1:1 classroom: A teacher’s perspective.

University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 45-79.

Cooper, T. C. (1999). Processing of idioms by L2 learners of

English. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 233-262.

Cowie, A. (1993). Getting to grips with phrasal verbs.

English Today 36, 9(4), 38-41.

Damen, A., & Al Hameed, T. M. A. (2013). Syntactic

avoidance in the oral production of Arab EFL learners

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya).

Darwin, C. M., & Gray, L. S. (1999). Going after the phrasal

verb: An alternative approach to classification.

TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 65-83.

De Jong , N. H. , Steinel , M. P. , Florijn , A. F. , Schoonen ,

R. , & Hulstijn , J. H . (2012). The effect of task

complexity on functional adequacy, fluency and

lexical diversity in speaking performances of native

and nonnative speakers. In A. Housen , F. Kuiken , &

I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and

proficiency investigating complexity, accuracy and

fluency in SLA . Amsterdam: Benjamins .

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter,

M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency

and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 31(4), 533-557.

Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: sorting out

the misunderstandings. International Journal of

Applied Linguistics19(3), 221-246.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner

language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning

and task type on second language performances.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–

323.

Fraser, B. (1976). The Verb-Particle Combination in

English. New York: Academic Press.

Freed, B. F. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, in the eyes of the

beholder? In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on

Fluency. (pp. 243-265). Michigan: University of

Michigan Press.

Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing Second Language Speaking.

London: Pearson Education.

Ganji, M. (2011). The best way to teach phrasal verbs:

Translation, sentential contextualization or

metaphorical conceptualization? Theory and Practice

in Language Studies 1(11), 1497-1506.

Garcia, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused

tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International

Journal of Applied Linguistic, 12, 156-175.

Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent

phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL

Quarterly, 41(2), 339-359.

Garnier, M., & Schmitt, N. (2015). The PHaVE list: A

pedagogical list of phrasal verbs and their most

frequent meaning senses. Language Teaching

Research, 1-22.

Gu, E. (2014). Formulaic sequences as fluency devices in the

oral production of native speakers of Polish. Research

in Language, 12(2), 113-129.

Hinkel, E. (2018). Teaching and learning formulaic

sequences and prefabs. The TESOL encyclopedia of

English language teaching, 1-7.

Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (eds.), (2012).

Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency:

Complexity, cccuracy and fluency in SLA.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Jaeger, A. J., Velazquez, M. N., Dawdanow, A., & Shipley,

T. F. (2018). Sketching and summarizing to reduce

memory for seductive details in science text. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 899.

Jeong, H., & Jiang, N. (2019). Representation and processing

of lexical bundles: Evidence from word

monitoring. System, 80, 188-198.


Kinney, J. (2012). Diary of a wimpy kid: The ugly truth. NY:

Pearson

Kinney, J. (2013). Diary of a wimpy kid: Hard luck. NY:

Abrams

Kinney, J. (2015). Diary of a wimpy kid: Old school. NY:

Abrams

Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and

reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for

reliability research. Journal of chiropractic

medicine, 15(2), 155-163.

Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying

perspectives on fluency. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.),

Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language

acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Kovács, E. (2011). The traditional vs. cognitive approach to

English phrasal verbs. www.uni-

miskolc.hu/~philos/2011_tom_XVI_1/141.pdf,

accessed April 2017.

Kovecses, Z., & Szabcó, P. (1996). Idioms: A view from

cognitive semantics. Applied linguistics, 17(3), 326-

355.

Lantolf, J. P., & Johnson, K. E. (2007). Extending Firth and

Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2

classroom praxis and teacher education. The Modern

Language Journal, 91(1), 877-892.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development.

TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439-448.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A

quantitative approach, Language Learning 40, 387-

417.

Li, X. (2010). Conceptual metaphor theory and teaching of

English and Chinese idioms. Journal of Language

Teaching and Research 1(3), 206-210.

Lipka, L. (1972). Semantic Structure and Word- Formation:

Verb- Particle Constructions in Contemporary

English. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Liu, D. (2011). The most frequently used English phrasal

verbs in American and British English: A multi-

corpus examination. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 661-

688.

Liu, D., & Zhan, H. (2018). Teaching prepositions and

particles. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English

Language Teaching 1, 1-6.

Marks, J. (2005). Phrasaled out? Don’t worry! Help is at

hand. Retrieved March 2015 from

www.macmillandictionary.com

Mart, C. T. (2012). How to teach phrasal verbs. English

Language Teaching, 5(6), 114-118.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time

for planning on second language performance.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 83-108.

Mohylevska, V. (2020). Lexical chunks and speaking

fluency of Ukrainian EFL learners. National

Academy of Internal Affairs, Kiev, Ukraine.

Myles, F. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: The

role played by formulaic sequences in early

interlanguage development. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken,

& I. Vedder (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance

and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in

SLA. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual

output tasks and their effects on learning English

phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4),

397-419.

Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning

that leads (to) second language development. In J. P.

Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory

and the Teaching of Second Languages (pp. 189-

227). London: Equinox.

Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Critical psychology.

Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. Florence, KY,

USA: Routledge.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic

approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA:

The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4),

555-578.

Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K. (2019). Is what you put in

what you get out?—Textbook-derived lexical bundle

processing in beginner English learners. Applied

Linguistics, 40(5), 816-833.

Polyakov, O. G., & Tormyshova, T. Yu. (2014). Fluency of

speaking in a foreign language as a

linguomethodological issue. Language and Culture,

28, 166-174.

Raddaoui, A. H. (2004) Fluency: A quantitative and

qualitative account. The Reading Matrix, 4(1), 11-25.

Rahimpour, M., & Hazar, F. (2007). Topic familiarity effect

on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of L2 oral

output. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 191-211.

Revesz, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. (2014). The effects

of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on

communicative adequacy in oral task

performance. Applied Linguistics. 37(6), 828-848.

Riguel, E. (2014). Phrasal verbs, “the scourge of the learner”.

University of Sorbonne Nouvelle, 3, 1-19.

Rossiter, M. J., Derwing, T. M., Manimtim, L. G., &

Thomson, R. I. (2010). Oral fluency: The neglected

component in the communicative language

classroom. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 66(4), 583-606.

Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and

compounds: A cognitive approach. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Schmitt, N., Dornyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durrow, V. (2004).

Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences:

A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic

sequences Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 55–

86). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language

fluency. New York: Routledge.

Serrano-Lopez, M., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Materializing

linguistic concepts through 3-D clay modeling: A

tool-and-result approach to mediating L2 Spanish

development. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.),

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/


Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second

languages (pp. 321-346). London: Equinox.

Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT

Journal, 44(2), 144-152.

Siyanova, A., &. Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and non-native

use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. IRAL, 45(2),

119-139.

Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2015). On the ‘holistic’ nature of

formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and

Linguistic Theory, 11, 285–301.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance:

Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis.

Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.

Skehan, P. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two

perspectives on task research and their implications

for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

36, 34-49.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning

and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity

in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research,

1(3), 16-33.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task

structure and processing conditions on narrative

retellings. Language Learning, 49(1), 93 – 120.

Skehan, P., Xiaoyue, B., Qian, L., & Wang, Z. (2012). The

task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-

based performance. Language Teaching Research,

16, 170-187.

Sroka, K. A. (1972). The Syntax of English Phrasal Verbs.

The Hague: Mouton.

Teng, M. F. (2017). The effectiveness of group, pair and

individual output tasks on learning phrasal verbs. The

Language Learning Journal, 1-14.

Thim, S. (2012). Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle

construction and its history. Boston: Walter de

Gruyter

Thom, D. (2017). A cognitive linguistic approach to phrasal

verbs: A teacher's guide" (2017). Honors Senior

Theses downloaded July 2018 from

ttps://digitalcommons.wou.edu/honors_theses/139

Toni, A., Hassaskhah, J., & Birjandi, P. (2017). The

Impressibility of Speaking Accuracy/Fluency among

EFL Undergraduates: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of

English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 10(21),

184-225.

Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. M. (2003). Making sense of

polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547-

586.

Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory.

Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International

Journal, 9, 43–66.

White, B. (2012). A conceptual approach to the instruction

of phrasal verbs. The Modern Language Journal,

96(3). 419-438.

Wiley, J. (2019). Picture this! Effects of photographs,

diagrams, animations, and sketching on learning and

beliefs about learning from a geoscience text. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 9-19.

Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences

in second language speech: An exploration of the

foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 63(1), 13-33.

Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language

speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom

applications. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yasuda, S. (2010). Learning phrasal verbs through

conceptual metaphor: A case of Japanese EFL

learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 250-273.

How to Site: Saeedehghan, R., Khatib, M., Ghaemi, F. (2020). The Effect of memorizing particle phrases through student-

generated sketches on EFL learners’ spoken fluency. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 3(11), 27-40. doi:

10.22034/iepa.2020.243736.1200

Iranian Journal of Learning & Memory is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

International License.

Documents

The Effect of Memorizing Particle Phrases through Student